This forum is in archive mode. You will not be able to post new content.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Dubiaku

Pages: [1]
1
Science / Re: Extraterrestrial LIFE?
« on: January 08, 2013, 07:56:13 PM »
Extraterrestrial life may be drastically different from life here, on earth... Or maybe not?
Life > Survival > Natural Selection (survival of the fittest..bla..bla..bla) > Evolution....


Aliens may eventually end up resembling us..   :-\

btw.. wouldn't silicon be a viable substitube for carbon?
Extraterrestrial life may be drastically different from life here, on earth... Or maybe not?
Life > Survival > Natural Selection (survival of the fittest..bla..bla..bla) > Evolution....


Aliens may eventually end up resembling us..   :-\ 

btw.. wouldn't silicon be a viable substitube for carbon?
You know, silicon is often touted as a substitute for carbon. It has some ability to concatenate, so it can form chains that would be needed for complex molecules. They used it on Star Trek. But my understanding is that the temperatures needed are unreasonable, something like very high to break bonds yet very low to form them, but I'd need to check up on that. In any case, silicon can only form very short chains, but if there is any possibility at all of life based on something other than carbon, I'd definitely give my grudging vote to silicon.


Yes, they might look like us. There may be some reason why life only forms rarely and we may be the average of the possibilities. But if you take one major event that led to us, the first eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic cells, the thing that may make or break development of complex life, it had around 3 billion years to occur. All that time, prokaryotes may have existed, and the rise of the eukaryotes was a random occurrence. In other words, elsewhere, complex life could be 1 or 2 billion years ahead of us. Can you imagine what that means as far as development? We can't even envision the next century. Surely, they would not contact us any more than we would want to chat with bacteria. They could be invisible to us and already here. Some have suggested that they could even have made space look the way it does as a projection that is not real, removing our hope of contact at light speed.


The possibilities are endless. In a truly infinite universe, I mean that literally.

2
Science / Re: Extraterrestrial LIFE?
« on: January 07, 2013, 01:25:51 AM »
There are also lifeforms that live in volcanos and eat rock.
Yes, at temperatures where most proteins would unravel - a good thing to study for heat injuries to humans. But, they are still carbon-based life forms.

3
Science / Re: Extraterrestrial LIFE?
« on: January 07, 2013, 01:14:32 AM »
It amuses me when scientists say aliens need the same living conditions as we do.  Every living thing on this planet has evolved to suit the environment so who is to say that other beings couldn't evolve in totally different living conditions.  Like inhale argon exhale helium etc.
As far as aliens dominating us for being inferior beings I am not convinced. It is true that we used to do this thousands of years ago but as time has progressed we have discovered many ways of settling disputes without war, although not always.  The more advanced we become the more diplomat and civilized in my opinion, I'm sure that aliens with technology to travel billions of miles would have to be far more civilized than us and probably have very little material interest.


Well, because, it is impossible. Energy needs to be produced and used by any life form, anything capable of movement (to define "life" as simply as possible). That means that any energy producing method they use still has to follow the laws of physics. As any chemist will tell you, since inert gases can't react, and the chemical potential of helium is not less than that or argon, it will never happen. Life would have to be carbon-based, for one thing, since carbon is the only element that can concatenate to produce any of the more complex molecules needed for locomotion. Other elements have a very limited number of possible combinations, and just not enough to make for a "system" that could process energy. Energy is the great universal that knows no exceptions.


Still, within those parameters, we already have a lot of possibilities. Thare are even organisms on Earth that "breathe" poisonous hydrogen sulfide and produce sulfur as a byproduct. That is where all the sulfur deposits came from. So, oxygen is not one thing that is absolutely needed in an atmosphere. And there are certainly many more possibilities.


It is likely that IF there is other life, it may be completely beyond anything we are even capable of imagining. I'm amused, for instance, that so many people think that aliens even would have a face. Why? Because there are faces here?


The idea that we are all in a simulation is gaining traction. In early 2013, satellite data that will help in answering that question will be available. Whether we have collided in the past with another universe is an active area of research and one that is being checked as we speak.

4
Science / Re: Antimatter, anyone?
« on: January 06, 2013, 11:37:00 PM »
I think you need to keep in mind that ideas, such as "strings", are conceptual tools to allow us to have some sort of visual representation in our brains of something that we can never see or understand except by a process of analogy. There are, of course, no real "strings". If you think about it, you'll begin to see. What would they be made of? Cotton? LOL. You see what I mean.


But your idea of anti-vibrations is just as good as any other analogy, and right up there among the best ways to look at it. Remember that all matter comes from nothing, literally. Totally empty space still has an energy potential and virtual particles are created and destroyed within it. Hard to believe, until someone actually catches some before they  mutually annihilate. So the fact that they come from nothing means that they need to add up to nothing when the whole process is over. The only way that can happen is if they are exact opposites, like a 1 and -1. That way, any particles that come into existence can go back to non-existence without leaving anything behind.

Make any sense?


Strangely enough, this all comes from the Uncertainty Principle. We cannot determine exactly where a particle is if we know how fast it moves, and vice versa. Thus the limerick:


Higgledy piggledy,
Herr Werner Heisenberg said
"But Your Honor, it just isn't fair,
That I was speeding is unascertainable,
And if I was, then I can't have been there!"


Not only do we not know where a particle is, we don't know where it is not, and we don't know when it does not "not" exist, meaning "does" exist.


The fact that the universe is mostly matter means that they cannot be exact opposites. There needs to be some asymmetry somewhere that tends to favor the matter.

Pages: [1]


Want to be here? Contact Ande, Factionwars or Kulverstukas on the forum or at IRC.